MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People move to SFH neighborhoods specifically to have space. They are going to ruin the entire county until it is paved concrete jungle like Tokyo and we all get to live in sh!tty 400 sqft apts.

But hey, at least the crappy chipotle down the street is walkable. I can’t wait until this stupendously backfires and everyone with means (by and large part home owners) flees because all of the upzoning imports tons of poverty and trashy people into the county. Gee, you mean it sucks when your neighborhood street has 30000 cars parked all over because each triplex houses 20 people all with their own cars?

R.I.P. MoCo. Howard and AA Counties looking more attractive by the day.

Did you know that most Dupont circle SFH are now multi unit condos? They converted old victorian homes with many bedrooms into subdivided smaller condos. Is Dupont circle a trashy place? Also, why shouldn’t poor people live near wealthy people? Why should the government allow wealthy people to isolate themselves through government policy? Why not let the market decide?

I live next to a group house on a small residential Moco street. They have 2 trucks and 4+ cars with a 1 car drive way (no garage)...so obviously they take up lots of street parking..which is their right and fine. However, if there were two or more on our same block it would be a traffic nightmare. There is not enough space for two cars to pass each other if there is a car parked on the street. There needs to be spots to pull over...do any of these ideas think about parking?

And I live down the street from a family with a HHI north of $1m, two teenagers, no driveway, and 4 cars. Should we do something about them, too?

4 is less than 6+ . How many single family homes have 6+ cars and no parking?

You obviously don’t live near Wheaton or Aspen Hill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we maybe need to get some facts straight.

This proposal would allow up to four residences to be built on a lot where just one residence is allowed. This would mean that an individual or a developer could purchase a SFH lot when it becomes available and build what amounts to a small set of townhomes. This ASSUMES that all existing setback and other lot coverage rules are maintained.

It is ALREADY allowed to have accessory dwelling units on a SFH property, either detached or attached. So already you can have multiple families on a lot.

These individual buildings will be relatively expensive. We are not talking about large apartment blocks with rent-capped units...but townhomes. Taxes will be paid.

The valid issues to be addressed are parking and school capacity. Everything else is catastrophizing.

There is a lot here that is false or intentionally misleading. Which is typical for you folks.

First, can we have a discussion without talking about "you folks" and slinging insults?

Second, I'm happy to be corrected on anything wrong, or for anybody to add needed nuance to the statements. You know....have a conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is zero chance that MoCo will not lose its taxpaying and upper income citizens because of this change. What is even stupid is that MoCo has plenty of underutilized commercial land that can be converted to housing of multiple types. Much of that land will never be office or retail.

I think that they are ok with that. What they lose in quality they plan to make up for in volume.

How so? More volume of poverty and social needs who take more in tax expenditures then they can possibly pay in tax is a net negative. MoCo is going the way of Baltimore where they mane it extremely difficult to do business and drive out everyone with means who actually make up the bulk of the tax base. The area will crumble when all of the taxpayers who can pay taxes leave. You cannot make up tax revenues from a $250k household by bringing in 5 $50k households to replace. The $50k households will barely pay tax and require all sorts of subsidies, vouchers for lunches and will likely pay $0 in income taxes after all of the write offs and deductions. The county will get more poor with more volume, because the volume is going to come from poverty and low income households.

The family moving into a duplex or triplex is not living in poverty. Those homes will still cost around 500K minimum. They will pay taxes, or the landlord will pay taxes.

No, they’ll be rentals. Property tax doesn’t cover the same as income taxes. A single multiplex property tax will not make up for 4 below poverty line families who will all get stuffed into there and who’ll pay $0 income taxes because of their low inc9me and who’ll need more in tax expenditures than they pay.


You also think all of these multiplexes are going to be high quality. lol. We all know they’ll be cheap garbage flips or the units will have properties that are barely taken care of. It will just bring low income to good neighborhoods and ruin everything. I cannot wait until this stupendously backfires on the county and they panic as their budgets get blown up after there is mass exodus of high tax paying citizens.

Why in the world do you think these people would be below the poverty line and not paying income taxes?

You are really stupid if you think all of these dense units are going to be bought and owned by higher income families. They’re going to be bought up by slum lords, conglomerates, and investment funds who have zero motivation to maintain the properties because their entire goal is to minimize expenditures on property maintenance. They’re going to rent them out to low income masses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is zero chance that MoCo will not lose its taxpaying and upper income citizens because of this change. What is even stupid is that MoCo has plenty of underutilized commercial land that can be converted to housing of multiple types. Much of that land will never be office or retail.

I think that they are ok with that. What they lose in quality they plan to make up for in volume.

How so? More volume of poverty and social needs who take more in tax expenditures then they can possibly pay in tax is a net negative. MoCo is going the way of Baltimore where they mane it extremely difficult to do business and drive out everyone with means who actually make up the bulk of the tax base. The area will crumble when all of the taxpayers who can pay taxes leave. You cannot make up tax revenues from a $250k household by bringing in 5 $50k households to replace. The $50k households will barely pay tax and require all sorts of subsidies, vouchers for lunches and will likely pay $0 in income taxes after all of the write offs and deductions. The county will get more poor with more volume, because the volume is going to come from poverty and low income households.

The family moving into a duplex or triplex is not living in poverty. Those homes will still cost around 500K minimum. They will pay taxes, or the landlord will pay taxes.

No, they’ll be rentals. Property tax doesn’t cover the same as income taxes. A single multiplex property tax will not make up for 4 below poverty line families who will all get stuffed into there and who’ll pay $0 income taxes because of their low inc9me and who’ll need more in tax expenditures than they pay.


You also think all of these multiplexes are going to be high quality. lol. We all know they’ll be cheap garbage flips or the units will have properties that are barely taken care of. It will just bring low income to good neighborhoods and ruin everything. I cannot wait until this stupendously backfires on the county and they panic as their budgets get blown up after there is mass exodus of high tax paying citizens.

Why in the world do you think these people would be below the poverty line and not paying income taxes?

You are really stupid if you think all of these dense units are going to be bought and owned by higher income families. They’re going to be bought up by slum lords, conglomerates, and investment funds who have zero motivation to maintain the properties because their entire goal is to minimize expenditures on property maintenance. They’re going to rent them out to low income masses.

So I'll set aside the unnecessary insult for a second...

We're both making educated guesses here, but I think it is unlikely that a "slum lord" is going to by one single family lot in Bethesda as a huge money-making endeavor. I think it is more likely that a developer will buy it and build a mid-range duplex, and then sell it or rent it to a young family as a starter home.

I think the math points in this direction- Even the land will be expensive. You can't buy a piece of land worth 500K, take on the cost of demolition and build, and then rent it out for 1K per month and expect a profit any time soon, even if that translates to 4K per month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is zero chance that MoCo will not lose its taxpaying and upper income citizens because of this change. What is even stupid is that MoCo has plenty of underutilized commercial land that can be converted to housing of multiple types. Much of that land will never be office or retail.

I think that they are ok with that. What they lose in quality they plan to make up for in volume.

How so? More volume of poverty and social needs who take more in tax expenditures then they can possibly pay in tax is a net negative. MoCo is going the way of Baltimore where they mane it extremely difficult to do business and drive out everyone with means who actually make up the bulk of the tax base. The area will crumble when all of the taxpayers who can pay taxes leave. You cannot make up tax revenues from a $250k household by bringing in 5 $50k households to replace. The $50k households will barely pay tax and require all sorts of subsidies, vouchers for lunches and will likely pay $0 in income taxes after all of the write offs and deductions. The county will get more poor with more volume, because the volume is going to come from poverty and low income households.

The family moving into a duplex or triplex is not living in poverty. Those homes will still cost around 500K minimum. They will pay taxes, or the landlord will pay taxes.

No, they’ll be rentals. Property tax doesn’t cover the same as income taxes. A single multiplex property tax will not make up for 4 below poverty line families who will all get stuffed into there and who’ll pay $0 income taxes because of their low inc9me and who’ll need more in tax expenditures than they pay.


You also think all of these multiplexes are going to be high quality. lol. We all know they’ll be cheap garbage flips or the units will have properties that are barely taken care of. It will just bring low income to good neighborhoods and ruin everything. I cannot wait until this stupendously backfires on the county and they panic as their budgets get blown up after there is mass exodus of high tax paying citizens.

Why in the world do you think these people would be below the poverty line and not paying income taxes?

You are really stupid if you think all of these dense units are going to be bought and owned by higher income families. They’re going to be bought up by slum lords, conglomerates, and investment funds who have zero motivation to maintain the properties because their entire goal is to minimize expenditures on property maintenance. They’re going to rent them out to low income masses.

So I'll set aside the unnecessary insult for a second...

We're both making educated guesses here, but I think it is unlikely that a "slum lord" is going to by one single family lot in Bethesda as a huge money-making endeavor. I think it is more likely that a developer will buy it and build a mid-range duplex, and then sell it or rent it to a young family as a starter home.

I think the math points in this direction- Even the land will be expensive. You can't buy a piece of land worth 500K, take on the cost of demolition and build, and then rent it out for 1K per month and expect a profit any time soon, even if that translates to 4K per month.

Soooo...not "attainable."

(DP)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we maybe need to get some facts straight.

This proposal would allow up to four residences to be built on a lot where just one residence is allowed. This would mean that an individual or a developer could purchase a SFH lot when it becomes available and build what amounts to a small set of townhomes. This ASSUMES that all existing setback and other lot coverage rules are maintained.

It is ALREADY allowed to have accessory dwelling units on a SFH property, either detached or attached. So already you can have multiple families on a lot.

These individual buildings will be relatively expensive. We are not talking about large apartment blocks with rent-capped units...but townhomes. Taxes will be paid.

The valid issues to be addressed are parking and school capacity. Everything else is catastrophizing.

There is a lot here that is false or intentionally misleading. Which is typical for you folks.

I have no problem with ADU's. However, there is a big difference between allowing an accessory unit with two households (on a single lot) and upzoing vast portions of the country to allow up to 8x density. MOCO is also going to allow subdivision of lots which will result in 8 units where there used to be 1. This is a huge problem for traffic and schools. Unfortunately, the burden of this increased density will fall disproportionately on the middle-class and lower-income neighborhoods. The financial return on building plex units will be higher in areas with more modest single-family houses and lower land prices. This county is very focused on "equity," but upzoning SFH neighborhoods will worsen inequality and economic disparities by eliminating homeownership opportunities for middle-income and working-class households.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is zero chance that MoCo will not lose its taxpaying and upper income citizens because of this change. What is even stupid is that MoCo has plenty of underutilized commercial land that can be converted to housing of multiple types. Much of that land will never be office or retail.

I think that they are ok with that. What they lose in quality they plan to make up for in volume.

How so? More volume of poverty and social needs who take more in tax expenditures then they can possibly pay in tax is a net negative. MoCo is going the way of Baltimore where they mane it extremely difficult to do business and drive out everyone with means who actually make up the bulk of the tax base. The area will crumble when all of the taxpayers who can pay taxes leave. You cannot make up tax revenues from a $250k household by bringing in 5 $50k households to replace. The $50k households will barely pay tax and require all sorts of subsidies, vouchers for lunches and will likely pay $0 in income taxes after all of the write offs and deductions. The county will get more poor with more volume, because the volume is going to come from poverty and low income households.

The family moving into a duplex or triplex is not living in poverty. Those homes will still cost around 500K minimum. They will pay taxes, or the landlord will pay taxes.

That is incorrect. Most of these small multifamily units are not going to provide homeownership opportunities. Investors will be buying up single family houses to replace them with multifamily rental properties. It will reduce the number of ownership opportunities and make homeownership less attainable for MOCO residents. The risk adjusted return for selling individual units of small multifamily buildings is usually not favorable.

+1. Duplexes will only pencil in areas that aren’t well served by mass transit. Triples may do a little better. Quads are most likely to pencil, but at that point we’re talking about pretty small units that are likely to be rentals.

For taxes, I think Friedson put something in a tax bill last year that would exempt some of these from impact fees and property taxes. I think it was something like anything with 25 percent affordable units would be property tax exempt. That means you could build a quad with a small basement MPDU (that would be naturally affordable anyway) and get out of paying property taxes and impact fees. If he hasn’t passed it yet, expect that to come next when zoning doesn’t magically make these units appear.

I’m all in for the upzoning as long as the county carefully reviews existing and proposed tax exemptions to make sure upzoning doesn’t result in more properties that don’t pay property taxes and as long as everyone is realistic about needing more roads to make this work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is zero chance that MoCo will not lose its taxpaying and upper income citizens because of this change. What is even stupid is that MoCo has plenty of underutilized commercial land that can be converted to housing of multiple types. Much of that land will never be office or retail.

I think that they are ok with that. What they lose in quality they plan to make up for in volume.

How so? More volume of poverty and social needs who take more in tax expenditures then they can possibly pay in tax is a net negative. MoCo is going the way of Baltimore where they mane it extremely difficult to do business and drive out everyone with means who actually make up the bulk of the tax base. The area will crumble when all of the taxpayers who can pay taxes leave. You cannot make up tax revenues from a $250k household by bringing in 5 $50k households to replace. The $50k households will barely pay tax and require all sorts of subsidies, vouchers for lunches and will likely pay $0 in income taxes after all of the write offs and deductions. The county will get more poor with more volume, because the volume is going to come from poverty and low income households.

That is idiotic to exempt some units from property taxes. This will create a fiscal death spiral for the county.

The family moving into a duplex or triplex is not living in poverty. Those homes will still cost around 500K minimum. They will pay taxes, or the landlord will pay taxes.

That is incorrect. Most of these small multifamily units are not going to provide homeownership opportunities. Investors will be buying up single family houses to replace them with multifamily rental properties. It will reduce the number of ownership opportunities and make homeownership less attainable for MOCO residents. The risk adjusted return for selling individual units of small multifamily buildings is usually not favorable.

+1. Duplexes will only pencil in areas that aren’t well served by mass transit. Triples may do a little better. Quads are most likely to pencil, but at that point we’re talking about pretty small units that are likely to be rentals.

For taxes, I think Friedson put something in a tax bill last year that would exempt some of these from impact fees and property taxes. I think it was something like anything with 25 percent affordable units would be property tax exempt. That means you could build a quad with a small basement MPDU (that would be naturally affordable anyway) and get out of paying property taxes and impact fees. If he hasn’t passed it yet, expect that to come next when zoning doesn’t magically make these units appear.

I’m all in for the upzoning as long as the county carefully reviews existing and proposed tax exemptions to make sure upzoning doesn’t result in more properties that don’t pay property taxes and as long as everyone is realistic about needing more roads to make this work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is zero chance that MoCo will not lose its taxpaying and upper income citizens because of this change. What is even stupid is that MoCo has plenty of underutilized commercial land that can be converted to housing of multiple types. Much of that land will never be office or retail.

I think that they are ok with that. What they lose in quality they plan to make up for in volume.

How so? More volume of poverty and social needs who take more in tax expenditures then they can possibly pay in tax is a net negative. MoCo is going the way of Baltimore where they mane it extremely difficult to do business and drive out everyone with means who actually make up the bulk of the tax base. The area will crumble when all of the taxpayers who can pay taxes leave. You cannot make up tax revenues from a $250k household by bringing in 5 $50k households to replace. The $50k households will barely pay tax and require all sorts of subsidies, vouchers for lunches and will likely pay $0 in income taxes after all of the write offs and deductions. The county will get more poor with more volume, because the volume is going to come from poverty and low income households.

The family moving into a duplex or triplex is not living in poverty. Those homes will still cost around 500K minimum. They will pay taxes, or the landlord will pay taxes.

No, they’ll be rentals. Property tax doesn’t cover the same as income taxes. A single multiplex property tax will not make up for 4 below poverty line families who will all get stuffed into there and who’ll pay $0 income taxes because of their low inc9me and who’ll need more in tax expenditures than they pay.


You also think all of these multiplexes are going to be high quality. lol. We all know they’ll be cheap garbage flips or the units will have properties that are barely taken care of. It will just bring low income to good neighborhoods and ruin everything. I cannot wait until this stupendously backfires on the county and they panic as their budgets get blown up after there is mass exodus of high tax paying citizens.

Why in the world do you think these people would be below the poverty line and not paying income taxes?

You are really stupid if you think all of these dense units are going to be bought and owned by higher income families. They’re going to be bought up by slum lords, conglomerates, and investment funds who have zero motivation to maintain the properties because their entire goal is to minimize expenditures on property maintenance. They’re going to rent them out to low income masses.

So I'll set aside the unnecessary insult for a second...

We're both making educated guesses here, but I think it is unlikely that a "slum lord" is going to by one single family lot in Bethesda as a huge money-making endeavor. I think it is more likely that a developer will buy it and build a mid-range duplex, and then sell it or rent it to a young family as a starter home.

I think the math points in this direction- Even the land will be expensive. You can't buy a piece of land worth 500K, take on the cost of demolition and build, and then rent it out for 1K per month and expect a profit any time soon, even if that translates to 4K per month.

This is very simple. SFH owners want SFH neighborhoods. SFH owners generally have choices. SFH owners tend to be in higher income tax brackets than others. At Federal level, for 2022, top 1% paid 45% of all Federal income taxes, top 5% paid 65%, top 10% 75%, top 25% 89%, top 50% 97, and bottom 50% 3%. There is little chance that 2 lower income families living in a duplex will offset the income taxes paid by the higher income family living in that former SFH. And MoCo will have increased its costs in providing services to those 2 families. And, no, property taxes will not cover the costs. The fact is that MoCo makes money on upper income families. MoCo loses money on, perhaps, 50% of its residents. Driving them upper income taxpayers out of MoCo is a financial loser.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is zero chance that MoCo will not lose its taxpaying and upper income citizens because of this change. What is even stupid is that MoCo has plenty of underutilized commercial land that can be converted to housing of multiple types. Much of that land will never be office or retail.

I think that they are ok with that. What they lose in quality they plan to make up for in volume.

How so? More volume of poverty and social needs who take more in tax expenditures then they can possibly pay in tax is a net negative. MoCo is going the way of Baltimore where they mane it extremely difficult to do business and drive out everyone with means who actually make up the bulk of the tax base. The area will crumble when all of the taxpayers who can pay taxes leave. You cannot make up tax revenues from a $250k household by bringing in 5 $50k households to replace. The $50k households will barely pay tax and require all sorts of subsidies, vouchers for lunches and will likely pay $0 in income taxes after all of the write offs and deductions. The county will get more poor with more volume, because the volume is going to come from poverty and low income households.

The family moving into a duplex or triplex is not living in poverty. Those homes will still cost around 500K minimum. They will pay taxes, or the landlord will pay taxes.

No, they’ll be rentals. Property tax doesn’t cover the same as income taxes. A single multiplex property tax will not make up for 4 below poverty line families who will all get stuffed into there and who’ll pay $0 income taxes because of their low inc9me and who’ll need more in tax expenditures than they pay.


You also think all of these multiplexes are going to be high quality. lol. We all know they’ll be cheap garbage flips or the units will have properties that are barely taken care of. It will just bring low income to good neighborhoods and ruin everything. I cannot wait until this stupendously backfires on the county and they panic as their budgets get blown up after there is mass exodus of high tax paying citizens.

Why in the world do you think these people would be below the poverty line and not paying income taxes?

See areas of the county that were solidly middle class 20-30 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is zero chance that MoCo will not lose its taxpaying and upper income citizens because of this change. What is even stupid is that MoCo has plenty of underutilized commercial land that can be converted to housing of multiple types. Much of that land will never be office or retail.

I think that they are ok with that. What they lose in quality they plan to make up for in volume.

How so? More volume of poverty and social needs who take more in tax expenditures then they can possibly pay in tax is a net negative. MoCo is going the way of Baltimore where they mane it extremely difficult to do business and drive out everyone with means who actually make up the bulk of the tax base. The area will crumble when all of the taxpayers who can pay taxes leave. You cannot make up tax revenues from a $250k household by bringing in 5 $50k households to replace. The $50k households will barely pay tax and require all sorts of subsidies, vouchers for lunches and will likely pay $0 in income taxes after all of the write offs and deductions. The county will get more poor with more volume, because the volume is going to come from poverty and low income households.

The family moving into a duplex or triplex is not living in poverty. Those homes will still cost around 500K minimum. They will pay taxes, or the landlord will pay taxes.

No, they’ll be rentals. Property tax doesn’t cover the same as income taxes. A single multiplex property tax will not make up for 4 below poverty line families who will all get stuffed into there and who’ll pay $0 income taxes because of their low inc9me and who’ll need more in tax expenditures than they pay.


You also think all of these multiplexes are going to be high quality. lol. We all know they’ll be cheap garbage flips or the units will have properties that are barely taken care of. It will just bring low income to good neighborhoods and ruin everything. I cannot wait until this stupendously backfires on the county and they panic as their budgets get blown up after there is mass exodus of high tax paying citizens.

Why in the world do you think these people would be below the poverty line and not paying income taxes?

You are really stupid if you think all of these dense units are going to be bought and owned by higher income families. They’re going to be bought up by slum lords, conglomerates, and investment funds who have zero motivation to maintain the properties because their entire goal is to minimize expenditures on property maintenance. They’re going to rent them out to low income masses.

Few, if any, upper income families will buy a duplex in a neighborhood of these dense units.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we maybe need to get some facts straight.

This proposal would allow up to four residences to be built on a lot where just one residence is allowed. This would mean that an individual or a developer could purchase a SFH lot when it becomes available and build what amounts to a small set of townhomes. This ASSUMES that all existing setback and other lot coverage rules are maintained.

It is ALREADY allowed to have accessory dwelling units on a SFH property, either detached or attached. So already you can have multiple families on a lot.

These individual buildings will be relatively expensive. We are not talking about large apartment blocks with rent-capped units...but townhomes. Taxes will be paid.

The valid issues to be addressed are parking and school capacity. Everything else is catastrophizing.

There is a lot here that is false or intentionally misleading. Which is typical for you folks.

First, can we have a discussion without talking about "you folks" and slinging insults?

Second, I'm happy to be corrected on anything wrong, or for anybody to add needed nuance to the statements. You know....have a conversation.

It’s funny that the person charging that others are “catastrophizing” thinks someone saying “you folks” is an insult.

The first misleading claim is regarding units. The proposal is for 4 units at a minimum lot size of 5,000 sq ft and allowing for lot splitting. So if you have an 11,500 sq ft lot, you can do 8 units.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is zero chance that MoCo will not lose its taxpaying and upper income citizens because of this change. What is even stupid is that MoCo has plenty of underutilized commercial land that can be converted to housing of multiple types. Much of that land will never be office or retail.

I think that they are ok with that. What they lose in quality they plan to make up for in volume.

How so? More volume of poverty and social needs who take more in tax expenditures then they can possibly pay in tax is a net negative. MoCo is going the way of Baltimore where they mane it extremely difficult to do business and drive out everyone with means who actually make up the bulk of the tax base. The area will crumble when all of the taxpayers who can pay taxes leave. You cannot make up tax revenues from a $250k household by bringing in 5 $50k households to replace. The $50k households will barely pay tax and require all sorts of subsidies, vouchers for lunches and will likely pay $0 in income taxes after all of the write offs and deductions. The county will get more poor with more volume, because the volume is going to come from poverty and low income households.

The family moving into a duplex or triplex is not living in poverty. Those homes will still cost around 500K minimum. They will pay taxes, or the landlord will pay taxes.

No, they’ll be rentals. Property tax doesn’t cover the same as income taxes. A single multiplex property tax will not make up for 4 below poverty line families who will all get stuffed into there and who’ll pay $0 income taxes because of their low inc9me and who’ll need more in tax expenditures than they pay.


You also think all of these multiplexes are going to be high quality. lol. We all know they’ll be cheap garbage flips or the units will have properties that are barely taken care of. It will just bring low income to good neighborhoods and ruin everything. I cannot wait until this stupendously backfires on the county and they panic as their budgets get blown up after there is mass exodus of high tax paying citizens.

Why in the world do you think these people would be below the poverty line and not paying income taxes?

You are really stupid if you think all of these dense units are going to be bought and owned by higher income families. They’re going to be bought up by slum lords, conglomerates, and investment funds who have zero motivation to maintain the properties because their entire goal is to minimize expenditures on property maintenance. They’re going to rent them out to low income masses.

Few, if any, upper income families will buy a duplex in a neighborhood of these dense units.

It’s very difficult to sell duplexes in MD outside a condo/HOA structure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we maybe need to get some facts straight.

This proposal would allow up to four residences to be built on a lot where just one residence is allowed. This would mean that an individual or a developer could purchase a SFH lot when it becomes available and build what amounts to a small set of townhomes. This ASSUMES that all existing setback and other lot coverage rules are maintained.

It is ALREADY allowed to have accessory dwelling units on a SFH property, either detached or attached. So already you can have multiple families on a lot.

These individual buildings will be relatively expensive. We are not talking about large apartment blocks with rent-capped units...but townhomes. Taxes will be paid.

The valid issues to be addressed are parking and school capacity. Everything else is catastrophizing.

There is a lot here that is false or intentionally misleading. Which is typical for you folks.

First, can we have a discussion without talking about "you folks" and slinging insults?

Second, I'm happy to be corrected on anything wrong, or for anybody to add needed nuance to the statements. You know....have a conversation.

DP but they’re getting rid of setback requirements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is zero chance that MoCo will not lose its taxpaying and upper income citizens because of this change. What is even stupid is that MoCo has plenty of underutilized commercial land that can be converted to housing of multiple types. Much of that land will never be office or retail.

I think that they are ok with that. What they lose in quality they plan to make up for in volume.

How so? More volume of poverty and social needs who take more in tax expenditures then they can possibly pay in tax is a net negative. MoCo is going the way of Baltimore where they mane it extremely difficult to do business and drive out everyone with means who actually make up the bulk of the tax base. The area will crumble when all of the taxpayers who can pay taxes leave. You cannot make up tax revenues from a $250k household by bringing in 5 $50k households to replace. The $50k households will barely pay tax and require all sorts of subsidies, vouchers for lunches and will likely pay $0 in income taxes after all of the write offs and deductions. The county will get more poor with more volume, because the volume is going to come from poverty and low income households.

The family moving into a duplex or triplex is not living in poverty. Those homes will still cost around 500K minimum. They will pay taxes, or the landlord will pay taxes.

No, they’ll be rentals. Property tax doesn’t cover the same as income taxes. A single multiplex property tax will not make up for 4 below poverty line families who will all get stuffed into there and who’ll pay $0 income taxes because of their low inc9me and who’ll need more in tax expenditures than they pay.


You also think all of these multiplexes are going to be high quality. lol. We all know they’ll be cheap garbage flips or the units will have properties that are barely taken care of. It will just bring low income to good neighborhoods and ruin everything. I cannot wait until this stupendously backfires on the county and they panic as their budgets get blown up after there is mass exodus of high tax paying citizens.

Why in the world do you think these people would be below the poverty line and not paying income taxes?

You are really stupid if you think all of these dense units are going to be bought and owned by higher income families. They’re going to be bought up by slum lords, conglomerates, and investment funds who have zero motivation to maintain the properties because their entire goal is to minimize expenditures on property maintenance. They’re going to rent them out to low income masses.

Few, if any, upper income families will buy a duplex in a neighborhood of these dense units.

It’s very difficult to sell duplexes in MD outside a condo/HOA structure.

I agree 100%. And I question whether condos are good long-term investments in MoCo. Maybe, they work as rental units but not as owners. Moreover, being an owner of one unit is a duplex, etc, is a recipe for disaster, at all sorts of levels.